Certainly, pesticides can adversely affect the environment in localities distant from where the pesticide has actually been used. Nevertheless, regulation of pesticide use should not take place at the national level but at the local level. It is in the areas where pesticides are actually applied that they have their most serious effects. Just how serious these effects are depends on local conditions such as climate, soil type, and water supply. And local officials are much more likely than national legislators to be truly knowledgeable about such local conditions.
In the argument given, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?
The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument;the second states that conclusion.
The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
The first identifies grounds for a potential objection to the conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
The first identifies grounds for a potential objection to the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.
the conclusion of the argument is not explicitly stated but can be inferred - something like: even though pesticide use can have effects that stretch beyond local areas, the locals should handle that issue because they are more knowledgeable than national legislators. Thus, the second BF is not a conclusion itself, it is a support for that conclusion. Notice how the answer choices C and D differ only in what is a second BF.
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论